Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-general.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-general-1.3.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: General tools for Octave, string dictionary, parallel computing Fedora Account System Username: sailer octave-signal 1.2.0 needs this.
I've just read the Octave guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave The spec templates include the initial cleaning of %{buildroot}: rm -rf %{buildroot} This is OK for EPEL5, but not for newer EPEL versions or the current Fedora versions at all. Vice versa, to match the requirements of EPEL 5 (rpm-4.4.2) we will need some more stuff, such as a BuildRoot definition and a %clean section. The package octave-signal isn't available for EPEL 5. If you don't want to provide octave-signal and octave-general there, please remove that line.
(In reply to comment #1) > The spec templates include the initial cleaning of %{buildroot}: > rm -rf %{buildroot} Thank you for your input. I have corrected this: Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-general.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc17.src.rpm I'm currently not willing to provide EPEL packages myself, but obviously I'd be glad if somebody else did!
(In reply to comment #2) > I'm currently not willing to provide EPEL packages myself, but obviously I'd > be glad if somebody else did! Should be no problem to add the extra stuff for EPEL later. Once this package is ready, you should request the EPEL branches anyway, regardless of whether you want to provide packages for them. Taking this for a full review.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4575505 $ rpmlint -i -v * octave-general.src: I: checking octave-general.src: I: checking-url http://octave.sourceforge.net/general/ (timeout 10 seconds) octave-general.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octave/general-1.3.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) octave-general.i686: I: checking octave-general.i686: I: checking-url http://octave.sourceforge.net/general/ (timeout 10 seconds) octave-general.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. octave-general.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm octave-general.x86_64: I: checking octave-general.x86_64: I: checking-url http://octave.sourceforge.net/general/ (timeout 10 seconds) octave-general.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. octave-general.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm octave-general-debuginfo.i686: I: checking octave-general-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://octave.sourceforge.net/general/ (timeout 10 seconds) octave-general-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking octave-general-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://octave.sourceforge.net/general/ (timeout 10 seconds) octave-general.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octave/general-1.3.2.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Seems to be that rpmlint needs to be fixed first... However, the warning about the not provided obsolete package is worth to think about it. As far as I can see, octave-general is a drop-in replacement for octave-forge, or even just an upstream renaming. Correct me if I'm wrong. Besides that, your package looks fine so far, due to the special set of macros for octave, I think.
Mario, thank you for taking the review! as for the rpmlint warnings: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge As the last octave-forge package the fedora project shipped, namely octave-forge-20090607-17.fc14, included general, the obsoletes needs to be there. See the octave packaging guidelines, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave. We cannot provide octave-forge in octave-general, however, because octave-forge has been split into different packages, so provides would not work and cause even more dependency mess. W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm This warning is coming from %octave_pkg_preun, in file /etc/rpm/macros.octave, which is part of octave-devel. As the FESCO-approved octave packaging guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave require me to use that macro, I think we have to live with this warning.
(In reply to comment #5) > W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm > This warning is coming from %octave_pkg_preun, in file > /etc/rpm/macros.octave, which is part of octave-devel. As the FESCO-approved > octave packaging guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave > require me to use that macro, I think we have to live with this warning. That's why I mean rpmlint should be fixed to reflect the issue which comes up when using this macro :) --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv3+ and BSD and Public Domain [.] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * 1248c563256a6662b321fba6f7e9da435c81b4a52efad19b0e1d9930ce3b4e92 general-1.3.2.tar.gz 1248c563256a6662b321fba6f7e9da435c81b4a52efad19b0e1d9930ce3b4e92 general-1.3.2.tar.gz.packaged [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Thank you Mario! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: octave-general Short Description: General tools for Octave, string dictionary, parallel computing Owners: sailer Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc18
octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc17
Package octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16143/octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
octave-general-1.3.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: octave-general New Branches: epel7 Owners: orion InitialCC: